Jharkhand HC Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption by IPS Officers | Calls Claims Vague, Unsubstantiated and Motivated by Revenge
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed a public interest litigation seeking investigation into alleged misconduct and accumulation of disproportionate assets by senior IPS officers. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, citing lack of credible evidence and delay in filing. It directed that such allegations must be supported by concrete material and brought in a timely manner. The Bench stated that vague and unsupported claims cannot form the basis for judicial intervention under the guise of public interest.
The writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by an individual claiming to be a social activist. The petitioner sought multiple directions against officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS), including an investigation into an FIR registered in 2000 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner alleged that a senior IPS officer (Respondent No.13) facilitated a fake M.A. (History) degree for his wife from Magadh University, Bihar, allowing her to gain employment as a Lecturer.
The petitioner further sought directions to investigate Respondents No.14 and No.15, both IPS officers, alleging accumulation of disproportionate assets. According to the petitioner, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had raided their premises and registered a First Information Report (FIR) on 10.07.2013, but the investigation had stalled due to their alleged political connections. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had also registered an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005. The petitioner prayed for suspension of duties of these officers and for submission of the investigation report to the Court.
The respondents, including the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar, submitted that no public interest was involved and the petition was motivated by extraneous reasons. The State of Jharkhand specifically argued that the petitioner had filed the PIL with ill intent.
"Before entertaining a PIL, the Court should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation."
"In support of the allegations levelled against the private respondents, the petitioner has only placed on record the copies of F.I.Rs. lodged against them which cannot be said to be sufficient to substantiate the same."
"The allegations made by the petitioner against the private respondents are vague and unsubstantiated. As such, seeking further investigation in such a matter that too by filing a PIL is nothing but an abuse of the process of court."
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgement in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, (2010) 3 SCC 402, outlining conditions for accepting PILs. It reiterated the need to verify petitioner credentials, check for personal motives, and require factual substantiation.
"The petitioner seeks investigation of the same incident after more than 25 years of the lodging of the said FIR... The petitioner has not given any reason as to why he waited for such a long in moving this Court."
Referring to Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434, the Court noted that delay and laches can justify dismissal of writ petitions, even in public interest matters.
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose prior litigation before the Patna High Court concerning the same matter. "Though the said fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner, he did not make specific averment in that regard in the present writ petition, which does not conform to the requirement of rule 4B of the Rules, 2010."
The Court held that the Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 framed by the High Court of Jharkhand must be adhered to in letter and spirit. It stated: "The Bench hearing a public interest litigation shall first verify the prima facie credentials of the concerned petitioner before entertaining any case as public interest litigation."
It recorded that the petitioner's assertion of being a social activist was not supported by any documents.
"The credential of the petitioner prima facie appears to be doubtful. Though, the petitioner has claimed that he is a social activist and is working for rooting out corruption in the society, he has failed to bring on record any document in support of the said claim."
It also acknowledged the petitioner's admission of a past criminal case and noted the omission to mention relevant prior proceedings. "The present PIL seems to have been filed with revengeful attitude against the private respondents."
"We do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate; Mrs. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanket Kumar, AC to AAG-V (State of Jharkhand); Mr. Divakar Upadhyay, AC to GA (State of Bihar)
Case Title: Arun Kumar v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:14492-DB
Case Number: W.P.(PIL) No.6977 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Justice Rajesh Shankar
[Read/Download order]
